The positioning. The features are all in, but the marketing and message is now 90% games console with some video stuff. And the software library is mostly core games. People are talking about Titanfall being the big franchise, instead of some Kinect wundertitle or such. MS started out chasing a new demographic (Nintendo's blue ocean strategy) but backtracked to take a blue ocean product and use it to target an established market.
I believe the marketing shows what it
can show. In true honesty there isnt much in terms of what it can show to the non-gamer to convince him to throw additional $500 even if there is a conscious decision to do so. There is no Kinect wundertitle because there isnt one for the casual to talk about. MS hasnt figured what this wundertitle will be and hence they dont have anything to show. They tried multiple times. Gamers are the only people left to talk about it and Titanfall is the only new thing left to talk about. So thats what is shows.
Nintendo's approach was super simple with Wii. They targeted just one demographic at the right price with a simple feature. Even Nintendo cant replicate their own success now. Let alone MS. Just like the XB1, the WiiU isnt what the Wii was. The WiiU is less simple, less friendly than the Wii, has an identity crisis and its pricey for what it offers.
We have different industries or businesses in the economy focusing on specific demographics. These players make a dedicated product at the right price to get the specific demographic buy the product. The XB1 tries to be all these at once. The price cant be good enough for all the different demographics, it cant be feature complete for all, it cant be capable enough for all, and for each demographic they are targeting, they are competing against many many businesses that have the ability to focus and offer exactly the features and at the price that their targeted demographics want.
At $500 the most complete and simplest feature MS can sell at this point, its the ability to play next gen games. Taking into consideration the silicon in the hardware, the backbone userbase
is the gaming one. Its the main reason the silicon is pricey. The silicon in that thing was designed with the business model of the dedicated gaming console imprinted in its DNA. If MS needs to get the non-gamer and casual gamer more than the hardcore, the XB1 should have been build so that the silicon and price reflected it. An XBMC-like device with casual games and camera sold at a much cheaper price might have been closer to the product the non-gamers and casuals would want. But MS couldnt do that without giving up their previous market share.And therefore it
needs to succeed as a games console to survive. Even if we assume that the non-gamer did buy the console to use its non-gaming features, it still needs to sell enough software and Gold Subscriptions to be considered a successful venture. If that fails, the whole product will fail. It will be selling hardware without enough generated profit to back it up. The XB1, at least currently, is like trying to take 3 different routes at the same time. In the future when the price might go down and features become more complete the picture might change. But not at this stage
